Wow - I never imagined such a rapid response to this question. Thanks. I've replied with roughly "Yep, they might be a bit confusing but everything else is worse so that's what we use". On Mar 13, 2010, at 8:06 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > > On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > > > > I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing > > out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to > > do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? > > > > > > I would disagree. This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601, and also > happens to sort properly (in time order). > > From http://www.iso.org/iso/date_and_time_format > > ISO 8601 advises numeric representation of dates and times on an > internationally agreed basis. It represents elements from the largest > to the smallest element: year-month-day: > • Calendar date is the most common date representation. It is: > YYYY-MM-DD > > where YYYY is the year in the Gregorian calendar, MM is the month of > the year between 01 (January) and 12 (December), and DD is the day of > the month between 01 and 31. > > Example: 2003-04-01 represents the first day of April in 2003. > > > > So, 2010-01-02 is January 2, 2010. > > > > Regards > > Marshall > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf